Started By
Message
re: Chizik worth more than '10 Sabans,' Auburn's Pat Dye says
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:50 am to diddydirtyAubie
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:50 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
yeah...don't lose to the #3 team at home and let Miami lose 28-3 to an unranked opponent.
That was also the first game of the season. Teams usually improve from season's opening to season's end. If I am a member of the media or a coach in 1983, I watch the Sugar Bowl and see an Auburn team struggle to defeat a decent Michigan team in the Sugar Bowl. They have to win the game on a last second field goal. The final score was 9-7.
And then I turn it over to the Orange Bowl to watch a team the media has proclaimed one of the greatest teams to ever play the game quickly get down 17-0 to a supposedly inferior Miami Hurricanes team. Nebraska ends up losing the game by one point in a classic finish. Who am I going to pick? The team that struggled against an average Michigan squad or the team that just beat one of the better squads to ever play the game of football?
Let's not forget that perception in college football is reality. In 1984, Auburn starts off the season ranked #1 in the country and promptly loses to Miami in the first game of the season. Different teams, different seasons, but perception is all that matters. Miami "proved" in the eyes of the media that they chose the right national champion when they defeated you in that first game of the '84 season. You also sink your case even further by coming back and losing the very next game to Texas and starting the season 0-2.
Now take a look at how Miami fared in the years after 1983. They struggled, much like Auburn, in the '84 season, before exploding from 1985-1992 with multiple Top 3 finishes as well as multiple national championships. Auburn remains a solid contender in the SEC, going on a little run themselves from 1987-1989, but nothing compared to Miami's run in the mid-80s and early-90s.
You can argue against these facts all day long but one thing you can't argue is that, at least in the world of college football, perception is most definitely reality.
2
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:56 am to RollTide1987
quote:
That was also the first game of the season. Teams usually improve from season's opening to season's end.
Miami loses the first game and Auburn loses their second against a much better opponent.
quote:
Let's not forget that perception in college football is reality. In 1984, Auburn starts off the season ranked #1 in the country and promptly loses to Miami in the first game of the season. Different teams, different seasons, but perception is all that matters. Miami "proved" in the eyes of the media that they chose the right national champion when they defeated you in that first game of the '84 season. You also sink your case even further by coming back and losing the very next game to Texas and starting the season 0-2.
get your perception shite out of here. you can't compare teams from two different years.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:58 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
get your perception shite out of here. you can't compare teams from two different years.
The media can and does. That's my argument.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:59 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The media can and does. That's my argument.
they didn't with the 2010 and 2011 Auburn team.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:00 am to RollTide1987
Also...that "unranked" Florida Gators team Miami lost to, they were ranked #16 at the time and finished the season 9-2-1 and #11 in the country.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:01 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
they didn't with the 2010 and 2011 Auburn team.
What are you referring to specifically?
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:02 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Also...that "unranked" Florida Gators team Miami lost to, they were ranked #16 at the time and finished the season 9-2-1 and #11 in the country.
and Auburn beat the same team...the same team that stomped Miami that year.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:05 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
and Auburn beat the same team...the same team that stomped Miami that year.
31-30 is hardly a stomping. Had Osborne elected to try the extra point instead of going for the win, Nebraska would have been the outright national champion.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:07 am to Beer Bryant
30 pages
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:09 am to diddydirtyAubie
Checking back in... Birmingham is still way better than Montgomery, right?
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:15 am to genro
quote:
Checking back in... Birmingham is still way better than Montgomery, right?
I think so...I like going down to the Rojo and The Garage over in Highland.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:24 am to RollTide1987
I don't know why we are talking about 1983 Auburn, but I got into a discussion the other day about how we were jobbed of that national title.
Look at our SOS vs the SOS of Nebraska and Miami. Both of the latter teams played incredibly weak schedules. Nebraska played a weak conference slate in a year that Oklahoma was down and their big OOC game against Penn State ended up being lackluster as PSU finished ranked outside the top fifteen.
That national title was awarded solely as an institutional basis, because their is no objective measure that anyone can use actually comparing resumes that can justify Auburn not recieving at the very least a split title (even though they deserved more than that, they deserved the whole thing).
Someone with more time should link the rankings of the teams that Auburn, Miami, and Nebraska beat. Auburn beat several top ten teams, whereas Nebraska and Miami did not until they played each other. The only common opponent between Miami and Auburn was Florida, and as we all know Florida steamrolled Miami and subsequently lost to Auburn.
Look at our SOS vs the SOS of Nebraska and Miami. Both of the latter teams played incredibly weak schedules. Nebraska played a weak conference slate in a year that Oklahoma was down and their big OOC game against Penn State ended up being lackluster as PSU finished ranked outside the top fifteen.
That national title was awarded solely as an institutional basis, because their is no objective measure that anyone can use actually comparing resumes that can justify Auburn not recieving at the very least a split title (even though they deserved more than that, they deserved the whole thing).
Someone with more time should link the rankings of the teams that Auburn, Miami, and Nebraska beat. Auburn beat several top ten teams, whereas Nebraska and Miami did not until they played each other. The only common opponent between Miami and Auburn was Florida, and as we all know Florida steamrolled Miami and subsequently lost to Auburn.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:25 am to RollTide1987
quote:
31-30 is hardly a stomping. Had Osborne elected to try the extra point instead of going for the win, Nebraska would have been the outright national champion.
That game being as good as it was was another reason Auburn got hosed. Our 9-7 win over Michigan, despite Michigan being highly ranked, could not hold a candle to that game.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:25 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
Rojo
Good call.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:27 am to Ross
quote:
That game being as good as it was was another reason Auburn got hosed. Our 9-7 win over Michigan, despite Michigan being highly ranked, could not hold a candle to that game.
I can agree with that. But let's not forget that Auburn was losing for much of the game against Michigan until a field goal put you over the top in the final minutes.
This post was edited on 9/26/12 at 11:29 am
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:28 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The team that struggled against an average Michigan squad or the team that just beat one of the better squads to ever play the game of football?
If my memory serves correctly, Michigan was ranked in the top ten after that season. If that is your definition of average than a lot of the college football landscape blows.
I'll agree on your points on perception being reality. Nebraska's resume was nothing special at all that year but they were considered one of the most elite squads of all time because, well, they are Nebraska and at the time they were a force of epic proportions.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:29 am to Beer Bryant
Pat Dye is like a not so bright Spurrier; he thrives on controversy and looks for moments to inject questionable insight. 
I wonder what he will say after Chizik is fired.
I wonder what he will say after Chizik is fired. Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:29 am to Ross
quote:
If my memory serves correctly, Michigan was ranked in the top ten after that season. If that is your definition of average than a lot of the college football landscape blows.
They finished in the Top 10 but were 9-3 while doing it. I shouldn't have said they were average but they weren't nearly as good as Nebraska or Texas were.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:30 am to RollTide1987
quote:
I can agree with that. But let's not forget that Auburn was losing for much of the game against Michigan until a field goal put you over the top in the final minutes.
Close games against top ten teams usually cannot be held as a detriment to a team's resume.
On a similiar point, people like to bring up margin of victory as a slight against Auburn that year in a lot of our games, but the fact of the matter is had Miami or Nebraska played more top ten teams as Auburn did, they more than likely would have been subject to closer games.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:33 am to Ross
quote:
Close games against top ten teams usually cannot be held as a detriment to a team's resume.
In the case of 1983 it was. You had to look really good there in the bowl season to have any shot at a national championship. You were heavily favored going into that contest, you were shut out in the first half, gaining only 61 total yards. Al Del Greco put you over the top in the second half but you never scored a touchdown.
On the other hand, you had a Miami team who throttled #1 Nebraska for much of the first half before it devolved into a classic thriller in the 4th quarter. I'm not saying Miami was better than Auburn, I'm just saying I understand WHY Miami was voted #1 over Auburn.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News